3 ms·

A typical argument pattern is to use free speech as a full stop in any discussion. Engaging with the content of something is rejected straight away, it’s always

by arrrg 6y ago

A typical argument pattern is to use free speech as a full stop in any discussion. Engaging with the content of something is rejected straight away, it’s always the principle of the thing. That’s a tiring argument and describing that as a very American way of fetishising free speech is entirely appropriate. Free speech is hard. And there are many difficult questions around it where you have to actually engage with the content of something. So I get why people want to take shortcuts, but that is just so tiring. This unwillingness to even engage with content is extremely tiring.

handedness 6y ago
I'm not sure whether you're saying I'm taking that shortcut in my comment, or the person to whom I replied is likely conditioned by seeing too much of that lazy way of avoiding discussing difficult issues. I'll assume it's the latter, and say that's very fair. I'll also say, respectfully, it isn't terribly relevant to my observation of someone who made their point by collectivizing an entire nation of people, and did so in a pretty ham-fisted way, while availing themselves of the thing they seek to restrict. Maybe I just find the complete absence of self-awareness in that comment to be oddly charming.
- klank 6y ago
  Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. I did qualify it with "I think" meaning it's a personal interpretation I was sharing. Rather than attacking my character, perhaps you'd like to try and understand why I'd have such a view?
  - mpalczewski 6y ago
    > Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. That's exactly how a lack of self awareness works.
    - klank 6y ago
      I missed an /s I guess.
      - handedness 6y ago
        Thanks, I was pretty lost without that. I also hope my efforts to make it clear it was a commentary on its poetic formulation and potentially a road toward something much worse than the ill which we seek to eliminate, and not an attack on the character of someone I don't know personally (which I try to refrain from doing), were not similarly inscrutable. That said, I thought it was a point I understand somewhat, however it was made. I just disagree with it.
imgabe 6y ago
There's a very simple line to draw. You police actions, not speech. Someone talks about building bombs? Fine. Talk never blew anything up. Someone builds bombs? Time to arrest them. It's not very complicated. People are responsible for their own actions. "But he incited me to violence!" is not an excuse for violence. Maybe in the case of a superior giving a subordinate a direct order (in which case both are responsible), but "the man on Twitter told me to do it" should hold about as much sway as Son of Sam's "the neighbor's dog told me to do it".
- sagichmal 6y ago
  This is too naive. Should a 9-year-old black girl be forced to endure racial epithets yelled at her as she enters her school on a daily basis because free speech is so sacrosanct it outweighs the abuse? Obviously not. The truth is in the gray -- free speech isn't an absolute.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Screaming in someone's face is an action, not speech. Should the person be stopped from expressing the same sentiment by writing a letter to the editor or posting it on their blog? Even if someone is saying something supportive to you, you would probably prefer they don't scream it in your face. Posting a statement to a Twitter account that people are free to follow, ignore, or block at their will is not even remotely comparable to physically forcing yourself into their presence to yell at them.
    - invisible 6y ago
      These hypothetical statements are just garbage. Demeaning other humans is wrong and nothing about it is “free.” The abused pays for that speech with their own identity. Now, how we determine demeaning language and what the punishment/cost is for using it is a worthwhile discussion. We _already_ have a system for when someone’s _character_ is attacked publicly: libel/slander.
      - imgabe 6y ago

by arrrg 6y ago

handedness 6y ago

I'm not sure whether you're saying I'm taking that shortcut in my comment, or the person to whom I replied is likely conditioned by seeing too much of that lazy way of avoiding discussing difficult issues. I'll assume it's the latter, and say that's very fair. I'll also say, respectfully, it isn't terribly relevant to my observation of someone who made their point by collectivizing an entire nation of people, and did so in a pretty ham-fisted way, while availing themselves of the thing they seek to restrict. Maybe I just find the complete absence of self-awareness in that comment to be oddly charming.

klank 6y ago
Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. I did qualify it with "I think" meaning it's a personal interpretation I was sharing. Rather than attacking my character, perhaps you'd like to try and understand why I'd have such a view?
- mpalczewski 6y ago
  > Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. That's exactly how a lack of self awareness works.
  - klank 6y ago
    I missed an /s I guess.
    - handedness 6y ago
      Thanks, I was pretty lost without that. I also hope my efforts to make it clear it was a commentary on its poetic formulation and potentially a road toward something much worse than the ill which we seek to eliminate, and not an attack on the character of someone I don't know personally (which I try to refrain from doing), were not similarly inscrutable. That said, I thought it was a point I understand somewhat, however it was made. I just disagree with it.

imgabe 6y ago

There's a very simple line to draw. You police actions, not speech. Someone talks about building bombs? Fine. Talk never blew anything up. Someone builds bombs? Time to arrest them. It's not very complicated. People are responsible for their own actions. "But he incited me to violence!" is not an excuse for violence. Maybe in the case of a superior giving a subordinate a direct order (in which case both are responsible), but "the man on Twitter told me to do it" should hold about as much sway as Son of Sam's "the neighbor's dog told me to do it".

sagichmal 6y ago
This is too naive. Should a 9-year-old black girl be forced to endure racial epithets yelled at her as she enters her school on a daily basis because free speech is so sacrosanct it outweighs the abuse? Obviously not. The truth is in the gray -- free speech isn't an absolute.
- imgabe 6y ago
  Screaming in someone's face is an action, not speech. Should the person be stopped from expressing the same sentiment by writing a letter to the editor or posting it on their blog? Even if someone is saying something supportive to you, you would probably prefer they don't scream it in your face. Posting a statement to a Twitter account that people are free to follow, ignore, or block at their will is not even remotely comparable to physically forcing yourself into their presence to yell at them.
  - invisible 6y ago
    These hypothetical statements are just garbage. Demeaning other humans is wrong and nothing about it is “free.” The abused pays for that speech with their own identity. Now, how we determine demeaning language and what the punishment/cost is for using it is a worthwhile discussion. We _already_ have a system for when someone’s _character_ is attacked publicly: libel/slander.
    - imgabe 6y ago